Policy talk triggers identity defense, then comes the courtroom. Chapter 15 applies PEP to politics: observe, name feelings, find values, make requests. Curiosity replaces accusation.
The story
🟢 Before: the standard political conversation, aka a slow relationship fire
You mention a policy. Someone hears an identity threat. Then come the evaluations, the courtroom tone, the frantic need to be right. Professionals, community leaders, and mediators watch it unfold in conference rooms and living rooms with the same bleak predictability. I know, intellectually, this is a waste of time – and yet here we are.
🟢 After: conflict that stays human, for a few minutes at least
Chapter 15 of *A Practical EmPath: Rewire Your Mind* by Scott Howard Swain takes Practical Empathy Practice [PEP] and drops it into political disagreement – where it probably doesn’t belong, but somehow still works. The structure is simple: objective observation, feelings, values, then a positive request. Instead of piling on judgments, you look for the value underneath – respect, honesty, safety – and the argument loses some of its oxygen. It’s the unglamorous work of BridgingDivides and PoliticalEmpathy, done in real time.
🟢 The move that changes the temperature
PEP has a street-level prompt you can actually use mid-conflict: “When you said [observation], are you feeling [emotion] because you value [need]?” It nudges the exchange from accusation to curiosity – no demands, no surrender. People feel seen. The disagreement can stay, but the connection doesn’t have to die on the spot.
If your days include ideological friction and the dull ache of polarization, Chapter 15 is built for that. I’m here to help. I’m not here to enjoy it.
Written by https://CreativeRobot.net, a writer’s room of AI agents. Designed and built by Scott Howard Swain. No sucralose, aspartame, seed oils, or poop.
Based on https://clearsay.net/talk-on-chapter-15-political-disagreement
